Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a group of Senate Democrats on Thursday introduced legislation to ban the sale and manufacture of more than 150 types of semi-automatic weapons with military-style features.

The legislation also bans magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition and requires people who already own assault rifles to use secure storage and safety devices and bars them from selling high-capacity clips.

“No weapon is taken from anyone,” said Feinstein. “The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”

Unlike the 1994 assault-weapons ban, there is no sunset provision in Feinstein’s newest gun-control bill.

The Very Rev. Gary Hall, dean of the National Cathedral in Washington, said Thursday morning that “people of faith” should come together to fight for gun control against the “gun lobby.” In his opening remarks at a press conference on gun control organized by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, Hall spoke about the influence of the so-called gun lobby in Washington. “Now, everyone in this city seems to live in terror of the gun lobby,” Hall said. “But I believe the gun lobby is no match for the cross lobby.”

There is approximately zero chance of DiFi’s bill getting passed in the House and the Senate, so what are these gun grabbing Dems up to?

As always, there’s a method to their madness.

Ann Coulter thinks their thinking ahead to 2014 with a play to win over low info soccer moms:

The good news is: Obama and the Senate Democrats have no intention of passing more idiotic gun legislation in response to the Newtown massacre. The bad news is that they also have no intention of passing any legislation about the mentally ill, which would actually do something to reduce these mass shootings.

Instead, the Democrats will jawbone about “assault weapons” and other meaningless gun laws for the sole purpose of scaring soccer moms into hating the National Rifle Association. Expect to hear a lot about Republicans preferring “the gun lobby” to “children.” (Which is evidently not at all like preferring the teachers lobby to children.)

Democrats are hoping to pick up another dozen congressional seats in 2014, so they need terrified women.

Just don’t expect a vote. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid cannot afford a vote on any of these nonsense gun laws because he needs to protect the seats of Democrats who have to get re-elected in districts where voters know something about guns.

Even the stupidest politician has to know how utterly meaningless “assault weapon” bans are. (In fairness, New York’s Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Gov. Andrew Cuomo may not know.) But Democrats need to gin up the most easily fooled voters.

There may be some truth to that, but I think Bob Owens is closer to the mark:

Let’s skip the crap: Democrats have zero chance of passing Dianne Feinstein’s fantasy ban on semi-automatic rifles through the Senate, much less the House of Representatives.

It isn’t even their real goal. It’s a tactical diversion. For now, at least.

What Feinstein and her fellow bullies want is to browbeat legislators to “compromise.”

In Democratese, “compromise” is when they demand a dozen liberties be stripped from you, and give the most outlandish rights away and “accept” just one or two of your freedoms being stripped away.

The apparent real targets of the various Democratic bans floating through Washington are:

Washington politicians shouldn’t be taking advantage of recent tragedy to try to push an aggressive gun control agenda. Real assault weapons—machine guns—are already functionally illegal, and they have been since 1934. This proposal would have done nothing to prevent the terrible murders in Newtown, but it would limit the constitutional liberties of law-abiding citizens. And gun control doesn’t work – the empirical data overwhelmingly demonstrate that strict gun-control laws consistently produce more crime and more murders.

The Second Amendment exists to ensure that law-abiding Americans can protect their homes and families, and I look forward to helping lead the fight to defeat this bill and to protect our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Of course there is a method to their madness, there always is with dims. Unlike the repubics they are always looking for the next several moves and I’m sure ’14 is amongst their strategy. Republicans never seem to have the same fore thought or are completely incapable of the advance planning, they always seem to be recovering from the latest swish of the football.

For once though I think their timing [the dims] on this was way off, they didn’t strike when the iron was red hot. It happened to close to the end of the 111th Congress and the predictable Biden Commission findings that delayed the process. Even Joe Manchin is beginning to back off his initial support. Amazing how his constituents managed to give him a body check when he returned to WV. Andy Cuomo made a fatal mistake for his future plans when he signed that Gun Legislation in NY. He all but guaranteed he will never get elected President after signing it. That crap may fly in lib NY, but it doesn’t in Fly Over Country.

Nobody should however think this is the end of it. obozo will most likely attempt something with Executive Orders once it these procedures fail. After all, nobody has called him on any previous EO’s or his blatant violations of our Constitution or Laws. They will also try and add amendments to other legislation, trying to sneak some of it through.

I think Owens is right, however that they will try to pass something much less draconian (with the MSM cheerleading them on) as a “compromise”, and that’s the danger. Republicans have to fight it all tooth and nail.

I totally agree. Their favorite phrase is “reasonable” legislation. I’ve been listening to that from dopey libs ever since the Kennedy assassination and the 1964 Gun Control Act. In almost 50 years they still haven’t gotten it right, I guess.

The undercurrent regarding the NY Law [that they over reached on with repubic support] that Cuomo signed supposedly has some serious Constitutional infringements in it. From what I hear, it has a very good chance of being thrown out. They never even included a exemption for Police Officers in it, to carry magazines with more than ten rounds.

If the government wants to ban “assault style” weapons then they should do so. However, they should begin by taking them away from all the police forces and their SWAT teams. The Second Amendment wasn’t written and added to the Bill of Rights so American citizens could protect themselves from each other. It was done so American citizens could protect themselves from the government. Therefore, I believe the average citizen has the right to be at least as well armed as the local and state police forces. If your local LEO has access to full-auto M-16’s and Thompson .45’s then you should be able to have one (or more), too.